If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

TopBarGuy,
Interesting thread. When I look for "brood structure," what do I need to be looking for so that I can relate to what you are saying.

I read the link you posted regarding Housel's Idea. I had asked a similar question to this in another website: What do you see in your hive in relation to Housel's idea? If they don't conform to Housel's positioning, do you rearrange them to do what they are supposed to?

On the photo of you link, it seemed like some of the "Y"'s were actually horizontal rather than verticle as Housel suggests. Any idea why?

&gt;If they don't conform to Housel's positioning, do you rearrange them to do what they are supposed to?

Personally, I think if the bees built it that way, than that's how it is "supposed" to be. I certainly don't want to change the arrangement.

The concept of Housel positioning (which I am neither a proponent nor an opponent of) as implemented by most people is an approximation in a standard hive using foundation, of the orientation of the rhombus in the bottom of the cell in a natural built brood nest.

&gt;On the photo of you link, it seemed like some of the "Y"'s were actually horizontal rather than verticle as Housel suggests. Any idea why?

That's my problem with the Housel concept. I see cells running in a lot of directions and even more variation in the "Y"s in the bottoms of the cells. It's hard to pick out a pattern other than the primary comb. And people doing the housel positioning, that I know of, aren't even DOING a primary comb (which is turning the foundation vertically), other than me.

In defense of the Housel concept, I have noticed that when doing standard foundation (wax or plastic) if they bees don't want to draw one comb correctly, you can flip it (horizontally) and they will draw it. And if you look at the "Y" in the bottom it was most often backwards (the "Y" was actually upside down) of the combs on each side of it. Housel positioning is the only explaination I've heard for this.

On the subject of horizontal and vertical comb (not to be confused with "Housel positioning") I have made my statements on horizontal and vertical comb based on my observations of a number of hives of self built comb. But here are some other pictures of natural comb.http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/ian/comb.htm

&gt;On the photo of you link, it seemed like &gt;some of the "Y"'s were actually horizontal &gt;rather than verticle as Housel suggests. &gt;Any idea why?

Cell size and orientation on opposite sides of a comb are somewhat independant from each other. So the bees don't orient to the 'Y's we see when they are building their comb.

The direction the 'Y's and other shapes point results from the shift in comb sizes and orientation between the two sides of the comb. Its as though a cell on one side acts like a telescope framing the comb bottom on the other side which can be just about anything.

So Y's, double headed Y's, and ??? end up pointing just about any direction depending upon that intersection of vision and opposite side comb construction. In that shot I've published, the Y's point in a multitude of directions even in adjacent cells.

I tried Housel positioning and I did notice a difference. Usually after the winter, I would have to recenter the cluster. After Houseling no recentering was necessary.Initially I attributed it to Houseling.

But my clusters before going with small cell were much smaller at that time of the year. Since then, my overwintered clusters have been huge. I now think that cluster size was the important factor and not Houseling.

I established some large cell hives without Houseling. I can't see any difference between them and my Houseled small cell colonies.